Derry City and Strabane District Council: Anger at 'Opportunistic' Relief of Derry Amendment
Alderman Derek Hussey condemned the Sinn Fein amendment of his motion to commemorate the Relief of Derry at the Guildhall.
UUP Alderman Derek Hussey has criticised what he described as an ‘opportunistic’ Sinn Féin amendment to his council motion, commemorating the Relief of Derry.
At June’s council meeting, alderman Hussey proposed that council light the Guildhall in the colour Crimson, on the Friday evening before the second Saturday in August each year, to commemorate the Relief of Derry in 1689.
Sinn Féin councillor Christopher Jackson put forward an amendment to the motion, that the Guildhall will be lit up this August only.
The amendment also stipulated that any further civic recognition, including the lighting of the Guildhall in subsequent years, would be dependent on the the Apprentice Boys of Derry providing “tangible evidence” that steps have been taken to tackle any issues arising from the annual Relief of Derry parade on August 12.
Councillor Jackson said that while council should “embrace” the Relief of Derry as a cultural offering, it was also something that “fills people with dread” and leads to Waterside residents leaving their homes to avoid it.
“Because their doorsteps are used as toilets,” He clarified. “People are left with flags erected outside their homes [and] there are very offensive flags erected at every entrance point to this city, to coincide with the event.”
“There are major issues in relation to logistics, car parking, road closures, and business impact, where our City Centre is closed off all day and there’s very little trade.”
He said the issues were “extremely disappointing”, as council has attempted to engage with organisers in recent years.
He said that Apprentice Boys did meet with council a number of years ago, but members’ concerns were ignored.
“Subsequent requests in relation to this have been completely ignored, so it doesn’t fill us with a lot of confidence that the Apprentice Boys are serious about building relationships within our city.” He said.
“This request, and this notice of motion, is an opportunity for us to hit reset; as a gesture of goodwill let’s light up [the Guildhall] and have have some sort of civic recognition, despite the concerns of many within our council area.
“But we expect that to be reciprocated and we want the Apprentice Boys to engage meaningfully with us.”
Independent councillor Gary Donnelly abstained from voting on the amendment and said that while he largely agreed with councillor Jackson, the amendment was “completely out of place”.
He said: “This would be like saying, if we’re going to do something for the anniversary of the Easter Rising, then because a certain organisation celebrates it in a certain way there should be something attached to it.”
SDLP councillor Brian Tierney did not support the motion and argued that the Relief of Derry and Apprentice Boys were “inexplicably linked”.
He said he has tried and failed to engage with the parade organisers in recent years.
“My colleagues in the Waterside and the Moor annually get complaints from businesses and residents about the behaviour of visitors on that particular weekend.” He added.
“We all know what happens – the public urination, the traffic congestion – and I believe that we as a council and a wider community should be working together to try and make the Relief of Derry celebrations better.
“The SDLP want to get to a position where we can confidently light up this building to remember the Relief of Derry, but now is not the right time when the organisers are not prepared to engage with elected representatives to address the negative sides of that celebration.”
Alderman Hussey responded: “The motion is simply asking Council to recognise and hereafter commemorate a significant historical event, what I am talking about here is simply this council and what it does, not held to ransom by what others do.”
“I find it extremely disappointing the way that a very simple motion has been taken by others and if this council wishes to use it in such an opportunistic way that’s regrettable, in my opinion.
“I don’t dispute that engagement might be useful if the organisation are agreeable to it, but [it is] totally separate from the initial motion.”
People Before Profit councillor Shaun Harkin said he supported the idea of lighting the Guildhall, but council should avoid proposals that “heighten sectarian tension”.
UUP alderman Darren Guy said councillor Jackson was ‘blaming the Apprentice Boys for everything’ with his amendment and argued that public urination and other incidents occurred at all large-scale events, including this weekend’s Maritime Festival.
“The Apprentice Boys have worked hard with the PSNI, they have met with all the parties, [and] I disagree that nothing really came of it,” he said.
“We have increased the amount of portaloos in the year and we hope they do that again this time around, however it happens at every major event.
“At the Maritime Festival this weekend, I’m sure someone will drive up the Strand Road on Friday or Saturday evening and see someone taking short against the business door or something like that.
“It’s wrong, but that’s human nature.
“We don’t like it, we don’t agree with it and it’s something that has to be cut out, but if we’ve got down to public urination as the problem and that can be sorted with more port-a-loos and signage, then I think we’re doing well and we’re going in the right direction here.”
Members voted in favour of alderman Hussey’s motion, with independent councillor Raymond Barr abstaining and councillor Donnelly voting against.
Councillor Jackson’s amendment also passed with 23 for, nine against, and councillor Donnelly abstaining.
Cap; Alderman Hussey said he was disappointed that his motion was subject to an “opportunistic” amendment